Michelle "all this for a damn flag?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.

Tonight former President Bill Clinton took the stage at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte. While it's hard to believe, the Clinton years are beginning to look like the glory days compared with the mess President Obama and his liberal allies have created.

After President Obama came to office, he tossed out the Clinton-era welfare reform that required able-bodied aid recipients to work. This is more proof of the President's overreach and general disregard for the constitutional limits on his authority.

Additionally, while Clinton presided over balanced budgets, President Obama has presided over four straight trillion-dollar deficits. And how about the middle class? Under President Obama, median household income has declined by over $4,000.

If we want to spur the economy and get Americans working again, then it's time we take this country in a new direction. By his own admission, President Obama's first term has been a failure. We cannot afford four more years of broken promises. The stakes are too high.

Either you're an idiot or a liar. I guess since you're a repub, you are both. http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/aug/13/bob-mcdonnell/bob-mcdonnell-says-obama-unwinding-welfare-work-re/

And the mess that Obama and his liberal allies created? Don't make me laugh.

We're not buying what you're selling. Why do you keep posting this crap?

[Anonymous]

lip readers? really? The wingnuts are desperate.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Re: the welfare waivers - these were PART of the Clinton-era reforms and as Clinton pointed out last night, they were in many cases requested by Republican governors. It's not as if it was an Obama proposal out of left field.

Including Mitt Romney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republican desperation. No facts just vitriol. Will get more acute after Bill's butt-kicking speech. He wiped the mat with them tonight.

Tonight former President Bill Clinton took the stage at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte. While it's hard to believe, the Clinton years are beginning to look like the glory days compared with the mess President Obama and his liberal allies have created.

After President Obama came to office, he tossed out the Clinton-era welfare reform that required able-bodied aid recipients to work. This is more proof of the President's overreach and general disregard for the constitutional limits on his authority.

Additionally, while Clinton presided over balanced budgets, President Obama has presided over four straight trillion-dollar deficits. And how about the middle class? Under President Obama, median household income has declined by over $4,000.

If we want to spur the economy and get Americans working again, then it's time we take this country in a new direction. By his own admission, President Obama's first term has been a failure. We cannot afford four more years of broken promises. The stakes are too high.

Is this Lying Ryan. Shame on you. But, you got balls to blame somebody for something you did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Re: the welfare waivers - these were PART of the Clinton-era reforms and as Clinton pointed out last night, they were in many cases requested by Republican governors. It's not as if it was an Obama proposal out of left field.

Yes, Gov. Romney requested the waiver that he is now accusing president Obama of granting. Ballsy, lying, sociopath, hypocrite and his followers. You guys make Jesus weep.

[Anonymous]

Under the section of its executive guidance labelled HHS Priorities, the Obama Administration explicitly declares that it will give waivers to promote state policies that use a universal engagement techniques in lieu of sure participation rate requirements. Universal engagement means a policyowner that seeks to have all adult work-eligible TANF recipients engage in constructive activities for at least hour per week. Activities are defined broadly to include things such as visiting a doctor or looking for day care

Around half of households receiving TANF payments contain no work-eligible adults and so are fully exempt from federal work requirements. Among work-eligible adults in TANF, half are completely idle each month. Only a quarter of TANF households have any required work activity at all.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Under the section of its executive guidance labelled HHS Priorities, the Obama Administration explicitly declares that it will give waivers to promote state policies that use a universal engagement techniques in lieu of sure participation rate requirements. Universal engagement means a policyowner that seeks to have all adult work-eligible TANF recipients engage in constructive activities for at least hour per week. Activities are defined broadly to include things such as visiting a doctor or looking for day care

Around half of households receiving TANF payments contain no work-eligible adults and so are fully exempt from federal work requirements. Among work-eligible adults in TANF, half are completely idle each month. Only a quarter of TANF households have any required work activity at all.

Would you mind providing the source from which you plagiarized this? I would like to further evaluate it.

[Anonymous]

Jeff, the paragraphs you asked about seem to come from two articles by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation. The first is from http://newsbusters.org/blogs/robert-rector/2012/09/06/dont-let-liberal-media-spin-you-obama-hhs-gutting-welfare-reform, and the second from an earlier article, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/315956/not-so-fast-fact-checkers-robert-rector.

Note: I am not the PP, just a friendly Googler.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Under the section of its executive guidance labelled HHS Priorities, the Obama Administration explicitly declares that it will give waivers to promote state policies that use a universal engagement techniques in lieu of sure participation rate requirements. Universal engagement means a policyowner that seeks to have all adult work-eligible TANF recipients engage in constructive activities for at least hour per week. Activities are defined broadly to include things such as visiting a doctor or looking for day care

Around half of households receiving TANF payments contain no work-eligible adults and so are fully exempt from federal work requirements. Among work-eligible adults in TANF, half are completely idle each month. Only a quarter of TANF households have any required work activity at all.

I am sure that few people will be interested in this and I am doubly sure that my response will be long and boring. But, for my own entertainment, I thought I would challenge this. As suggested in my previous reply, I am quite sure the poster was not capable of composing this response. It was obviously plagiarized. The subsequent poster linked to the sources of quotes. As an aside, the author of the original article, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, does not make it easy to check his own sources. If you click on a footnote in the Newsbuster article, it leads you to the same article on the Heritage Foundation website. Clicking on a footnote there, led me to another Rector article. All of that to confirm part of his claim of what an HHS document stated. It's obvious why he want to put hurdles in the way, because he is misleading about the document. Clearly, he did not want serious examination of his work because it would undermine his claims.

The HHS document is here:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/im-ofa/2012/im201203/im201203.html

In the section titled "Purpose", the document says:

"HHS is encouraging states to consider new, more effective ways to meet the goals of TANF, particularly helping parents successfully prepare for, find, and retain employment..."

Under the section titled "Scope of Authority", the document says:

"HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF."

So, clearly, this is not a document aimed at weakening work requirements.

Rector states:

"Under the section of its executive guidance labelled HHS Priorities, the Obama Administration explicitly declares that it will give waivers to promote state policies that use a universal engagement techniques in lieu of sure participation rate requirements."

Rector then suggests that "universal engagement techniques" allow recipients to avoid the work requirements.

Here is where that is stated in the document:

"Projects that test the impact of a comprehensive universal engagement system in lieu of certain participation rate requirements."

This is contained, as Rector says, in a section titled "HHS Priorities" and is the only mention of "universal engagement" contained in the entire document. Preceding the quoted sentence, it says, "The following are examples of projects that states may want to consider – these are illustrative only".

Prior to the list of priorities, the document states "The Secretary will not approve a waiver for an initiative that appears substantially likely to reduce access to assistance or employment for needy families."

The document also says that the agency is interested in "more efficient or effective means to promote employment entry, retention, advancement, or access to jobs..."

So, just to clarify:

1) HHS is allowed to grant waivers for experimental or pilot programs;
2) The document in question lays out the conditions under which waivers would be approved;
3) One example of projects would allow "universal engagements projects in lieu of sure participation rate";
4) However, such projects could not reduce employment for needy families and HHS will only approve waivers that lead to a "more effective means of meeting the work goals".

It is important to keep in mind that no waivers have appear to have been granted under the new conditions. So, making judgements about those waivers is impossible until we have waivers to examine.

In short, Robert Rector took one sentence from the document, exaggerated its importance, and drew conclusions that are impossible to determine. Then, someone plagiarized his work for the post above.

[Anonymous]

thanks helping the truth put on its shoes

[Anonymous]

The Obamas are anti American ....end of story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Obamas are anti American ....end of story.

what does this even mean?